I never said anywhere that it provides strong consistency. You still choose between availability and consistency. What you beat is the complexity the CAP theorem normally causes. You regain the ability to easily reason about your systems.
"There is another way. You can't avoid the CAP theorem, but you can isolate its complexity and prevent it from sabotaging your ability to reason about your systems."
"What caused complexity before was the interaction between incremental updates and the CAP theorem. Incremental updates and the CAP theorem really don't play well together; mutable values require read-repair in an eventually consistent system. By rejecting incremental updates, embracing immutable data, and computing queries from scratch each time, you avoid that complexity. The CAP theorem has been beaten."
> What you beat is the complexity the CAP theorem normally causes. You regain the ability to easily reason about your systems.
So instead of saying "The CAP theorem, while still being completely valid, doesn't have to as annoying as you might think," you said "The CAP theorem [has been] annihilated."
Wow. This is one of the most blatant examples of taking things out of context I've ever seen. The "annihilated" sentence you're referencing is part of a thought experiment in the post about an ideal system that's infeasible but instructive!
Here's the proper context for that statement:
"The simplest way to compute a query is to literally run a function on the complete dataset. If you could do this within your latency constraints, then you'd be done. There would be nothing else to build.
Of course, it's infeasible to expect a function on a complete dataset to finish quickly. Many queries, such as those that serve a website, require millisecond response times. However, let's pretend for a moment that you can compute these functions quickly, and let's see how a system like this interacts with the CAP theorem. As you are about to see, a system like this not only beats the CAP theorem, but annihilates it.
The CAP theorem still applies, so you need to make a choice between consistency and availability. The beauty is that once you decide on the tradeoff you want to make, you're done. The complexity the CAP theorem normally causes is avoided by using immutable data and computing queries from scratch."
"There is another way. You can't avoid the CAP theorem, but you can isolate its complexity and prevent it from sabotaging your ability to reason about your systems."
"What caused complexity before was the interaction between incremental updates and the CAP theorem. Incremental updates and the CAP theorem really don't play well together; mutable values require read-repair in an eventually consistent system. By rejecting incremental updates, embracing immutable data, and computing queries from scratch each time, you avoid that complexity. The CAP theorem has been beaten."